Griffintown is at the core of Montreal’s history. The proposed project does not reflect the scale and history of Griffintown and therefore is not in the best interest of the community. An alternate project which takes into account these two factors would receive popular support. It is the duty of the City of Montreal to ensure that an acceptable project defines the next 100 years of Griffintown history.

— Jeffrey Dungen, a resident of the Lowney Lofts

Montreal does not need another retail shopping area in this part of the city with yet more branches of the same-old, same-old retail outlets. The neighbourhood should fit into an overall plan for the whole city. I think a mixed-use neighbourhood should be a goal, with up-to-date small and medium-sized local businesses supporting the unique residential character of this well-positioned urban neighbourhood. Montreal-of-the-future could be a city of neighbourhoods each with a distinctive flavour – like Paris, NYC, Toronto.

— Daphne Mitchell

Montreal is a diverse city, full of energy and beauty. I would be very sad to see Montreal lose its charm because the city of Montreal is desperate for taxes. Any future proposals should be put to public consultation and have a very clear design and be able to address the issues of the future. The current project ignores the human scale and only promotes the automobile. This is outmoded and irresponsible.

— Clint Lewis

I am one of the many artists who rent studio space in Griffintown, and I worry about the lack of consultation in developing this historic neighbourhood.

— Margaret Griffin

While revitalization is essential and much needed in the Sud-Ouest borough, the “Bassins Peel” represents an area that is monumental to Montreal heritage and history. I judge, given the long standing heritage and tradition associated with this area, that there is no reason why a precautionary protocol consultation process should not be followed. In other words, there is no reason why the consultation process should exclude the OCPM. Whether it is their jurisdiction or not, the area is monumental to all Montrealers and a standard protocol fair consultation should be practiced to reflect Montrealers’ point of view.

— Jonathan Auger, student in Urban Planning, Concordia University

This area of the city has long been neglected and, given its historic roots, the incredible potential for development is undeniable. I fully support new developments: condos, mixed-use and commercial. But let’s ensure that these maximize the area’s historic structures and create a liveable vibrant community.

— Sophie Lorenzo, Senior Editor, Parkhurst Publishing

Do people visit London, Paris or even Quebec City for poor planning and non-descript condo buildings? No, they visit these cities (and many others) thanks to the abundance of historical buildings that create an ambience that is difficult to recreate with modern structures. Rather than preserve buildings and districts, this city wants to tear them down. When will our elected politicians realize the importance of our built heritage?

— Eliot Perrin, contributor to the McGill Daily

Although I don’t live in the area, as an Irish Canadian I have extreme concerns about destroying what’s left of the Celtic heritage of Griffintown.

— Joseph Donnelly

Save Griffintown! We would be losing so much and gaining so little from all of this nonsense.

— Lukas Glickman

There is a huge amount of empty space in that district that can be built on. The very few streets remaining with original Griffintown buildings, residents and businesses do NOT need to be razed. If the developer insists on having one massive empty space to build on before building anything, somebody should give him directions to Mirabel.

— Louis Rastelli, magazine publisher and author of the novel A Fine Ending

You know when the Parc Avenue crisis happened, I asked the mayor to his face at City Hall, in front of the entire council and opposition, the following question: “What will you do to ensure a fair and democratic public consultation process for future municipal developments?” I also proposed he set forth a motion to redesign the terms and conditions of modern-day “Public Consultation”, and make these accessible for all to know their rights in order to avoid future confrontations of this sort, and implicate Montreal’s people where they are concerned most: in their own backyards! Mayor Tremblay replied that my idea was a good one, and that the executive council would get to work right away on a new mandate that could benefit all, not least because of the public transparency with which the matter would be treated. My proposition was supported additionally by Marvin Rotrand. What is happening in Griffintown clearly demonstrates that Mayor Tremblay did not keep his word, and worse, may have in fact lied to me. I am appalled and personally insulted. But it’s nothing compared with what Griffintown residents must be going through. Let’s stick it to the city again!

— Alison Louder, actress and organizer of the Park Avenue name change counter-petition

Changes of this dimension should be put to a referendum and several options should be investigated. The City is not handling this in a democratic manner. They are looking at this as almost a “fait accompli” and showing some “great project” without analyzing the human aspect or the economic losses to downtown for the economic gain of the developers and additional taxes to the City coffers. The historical factor of the area also has to be taken into consideration. Where are you Phyllis Lambert? We need your input and the input of like-minded people. Zoning changes should not be undertaken before conditional approvals are given and public consultations have been held. The benefits need to be fully evaluated. New area redevelopment should not be done at the expense of another existing one offering the same retail choices. Public low-income housing is a must in this project along with other apartments condos, offices and retail outlets. Unfortunately, they may be looking at an income generating project for the developers. So many other things need to be considered.

I’m very disconcerted to see how the city of Montreal has gone about their plans to develop Griffintown. Allowing limited public input, and very quietly trying to grant one contracting group the privilege of developing this area is a stain on the administration’s record. I might add that their previous development of Quartier DIX30 is an eyesore in itself. Furthermore, the city of Montreal should ensure organic development in Griffintown that protects historical sites, and also ensures much greater pedestrian access, with more public transportation and less vehicle circulation. The current attempt at greenwashing and portraying their plans as environmentally friendly are sad, as their plans seem only likely to attract great amounts of vehicles to the downtown area.

Stephane Baillargeon, writing in Le Devoir, discusses the possibility of future economic collapse affecting Projet Griffintown. (The question in the article attributed to Hélène Dansereau is actually the question I asked (on Peak Oil). The city’s urbanism guru, Luc Gagnon, blanked on that question and punted it over to Serge Goulet, who repeated his stump speech about LEED certification until I pointed out that that’s not what I asked, and then the moderator called time on things.)

Griffintown’s 200 years of history are at stake. Whatever gets built there, we will have to live with it for the next 100 years. However, the city, by using the Plan particulier d’urbanisme (PPU) tool, has limited public participation to a mere 8 hours or so of PR spin Q&A sessions; the last avenue available to us at this point is to submit comments and briefs on March 10th-11th.

Will briefs and comments have any impact on whether the project goes ahead, or is significantly modified? Do we get any say on the Plan d’intégration et d’implantation architectural (PIIA) if it goes forward? We have no assurances on any of these.

Make no mistake, those of us who are involved with various community organizations (like the Committee for the Sustainable Redevelopment of Griffintown) are indeed writing up our briefs and comments on the plan. But we despair when we see that, if proper public consultations channels had been used, we might have had the option of more public debate beforehand, a plan defined before developers were invited to submit projects, and a citizen referendum on the whole thing.

The borough mayor, Jacqueline Montpetit, admitted freely that the choice of a PPU was a political move by the central City administration — deployed both to allow for expropriations — and, it would seem, to bypass the Office de consultation publique de Montréal (OCPM) to limit citizen participation and debate on the subject.

If this goes through, it sets a dangerous and undemocratic precedent; What’s to stop the city from using PPUs to expropriate landowners, and turn their land over to private developers, anywhere else? (Well, presumably not in Outremont, but I can imagine this happening in Ville St-Pierre, Little Burgundy, St-Henri, Verdun…)